Prenda's Brett Gibbs Objects To Pretty Much Everything, Including Use Of Hansmeier Deposition

from the but-of-course dept

Fri, Mar 8th 2013 10:18am — Mike Masnick

This probably will come as little surprise given his earlier objections, but Prenda Law's Brett Gibbs has filed yet another series of "objections," filed by his recently obtained legal representation from the law firm of Waxler, Carner, Brodsky. Like the last time around, the objections follow the same pattern, basically arguing that pretty much everything Morgan Pietz has said or filed is "irrelevant" along with a rotating cast of other objections: hearsay, lacks foundation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, speculation, etc. Some of these objections seem obviously ridiculous. For example, he objects as "hearsay" (among other things) a statement from Pietz about Gibbs filing different versions of the same motion. This is, to put it mildly, overkill.

Not surprisingly, the objections include the use of the Paul Hansmeier deposition which got so much attention yesterday. The specific objections here: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document. The idea that the document is irrelevant is simply laughable.

It's somewhat surprising that Gibbs and his lawyers felt this was a productive use of their time. As was covered pretty clearly in Ken "Popehat" White's big analysis of the case, it's quite clear that Judge Otis Wright is not buying Brett Gibbs' story, at all. In fact, he's taking an incredible level of interest in the details of the case, in a manner that suggests he does not trust Gibbs at all. Given that, you would think that filing a list of objections like this not only will not have the hoped for effect, but might actually do the exact opposite. It serves to highlight just how worried Gibbs is that this evidence will be used by Judge Wright in exploring the depths of Prenda's actions. Yes, some lawyers think that you should object to everything imaginable just in case it works. But, in this case, with the Judge making it pretty damn clear that he doesn't believe Gibbs and wants to get to the bottom of what's going on with Prenda, taking such an aggressive stance to all of this evidence seems like it could be a pretty big miscalculation. It does fit with Gibbs' and Prenda's standard operating procedures, but considering how badly that's failed in this case so far, you'd think that someone would have the sense to suggest he let up on the throttle a bit.

Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 73 0 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Cacd 543744 73 0 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: brett gibbs, morgan pietz, objections, paul hansmeier, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:18am

We found the real identity of out_of_the_blue. Objects to virtually everything with no real evidence/basis.

But we can play that game, from now on I'll adopt the "Prenda tactics". When I see it's the usual troll I'll reply

you have incurrend in one or more of the following: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:29am

Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
Gets funnier every time, Mike. Almost looks as though you're trying to lose ranking.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Prenda Law! A staple in the "At The Bench" series. Mike sez (short version): "Wow. Wow. Wow. ... The story is gripping."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130303/23353022182/prenda-law-sues-critics-defamation .shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:36am

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
Oh Blue. You just keep slipping and slipping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sehlat (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:38am

Why?
...someone would have the sense to suggest he let up on the throttle a bit.Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself. (Attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:44am

In for a penny
In for a penny, in for a pounding headache! I'm just waiting for Gibbs to be cited for contempt or obstruction. Maybe some time in "stir" will wake the bonehead up a bit, that he is in WAAAAY over his head!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:46am

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
"Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS."

If you mean, writing an article on his blog, on the website that his company owns...then yes he does put in an appearance. I can't see anything odd or sinister with that.

Were you told to make a comment and to use a minimum of 20 or so words? Cause your comment is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:46am

Re:
While a funny idea, the best way to deal with people like that is just to ignore them and/or report their posts; answering just allows them to feel justified due to people 'persecuting' and paying attention to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:47am

Makes sense ...
I can see the thinking of Gibbs' counsel here.
1) If we don't object, then the objection is waived
2) Objections belong to counsel, not the party/subject of motion, so it shouldn't reflect badly on Gibbs [!] (sure, the Court has to rule on every objection, but...)
3) We're doing our job (true... but which includes discretion)
4) Dude, Gibbs is already in the doghouse here. What's the worst that could happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:55am

and i cant see how trying to get 2 years worth of ip addresses of those whose criticism isn't liked either is gonna help their cause. i have a feeling the judge is gonna go to town on these!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:56am

Other than money (and I would get it up front) why would another law firm represent this guys?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:56am

I can't wait until this blows up in their face and the judge smacks them all down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:06am

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
Everytime OOTB says something stupid, another file gets seeded.

This just in! Piratebay severs peaking at 100%!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:10am

There can't be hero's without villain's....

I can only speculate that since the evil IP addresses are not enough of a villain, Prenda is setting themselves up...

Just wait for Steel's next law firm (that he claims he doesn't work for, from a state he isn't authorized to practice law in) to come in as the Hero and save the day....

Okay too much fantasy, these guys are just crazy....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:16am

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
I swear, every time I read Blue's comments, I fully believe that they cannot get anymore insane...

...and I'm proven wrong EVERY time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:18am

uh, no
remind us to care about you when you actually post a real post and not just a bunch of fluff. Literally you have almost the same amount of text spent on linking to other posts as, well, your entire post itself.

but hi, Prenda staff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:20am

Poor Gibbs, what a great scapegoat. I can't wait till Steel copyright's this story . Then the movie comes out. Then it will be pirated, and he will sue the downloaders. Simple Genius, he'll probably even sue me for this comment. John Steele, might be the Smartest millionare ever to go down with the ship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ken, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:36am

Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
Okay.

Filing objections to declarations and exhibits is good, careful lawyering. You risk waiving the objections if you don't make them. Sometimes you can win an issue because an opponent relies on inadmissible evidence to support a crucial point. Sometimes a judge will use objections to travel where the judge wants to go.

Filing the objections is not at all remarkable; I would have. The format is not remarkable; it's the format federal litigators use.

The part I would criticize is the scope. Some lawyers offer every remotely colorable objection to everything. I don't. The judge's eyes glaze over and you lose credibility. The better practice is carefully targeted objections to actually objectionable evidence -- objections that actually have a chance of succeeding. If you submit, say, ten key objections on limited and specific (but arguable) grounds, the judges (and clerks) will look at them. If you object to everything on every theory, your objections likely won't get read.

Also, at this point, objecting on the grounds of "relevance" reflects a heartbreaking level of optimism. Judge Wright has clearly determined that this line of inquiry is relevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:36am

The only thing I can think of is they want grounds for an appeal. "The judge never even properly looked at all of our objections!"

Seriously, the judge should make them justify a few of the more ridiculous objections, and if they can't form a coherent argument... more sanctions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:42am

Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
Since you seem to know - is it ordinary to just make a list of objections, without including why you think it is irrelevant/hearsay/whatever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeaverJuicer (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:42am

I *love* how they objected to the deposition that Pietz was an integral part of, due to "lack of personal knowledge."

That is awesomesauce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:46am

Re: Makes sense ...
IANAL, but, yes, I believe council *has* to object if they want to reserve the right to appeal on those grounds. If you don't object to something you can't appeal it later. So, silly as it is, objecting makes good legal sense, all the more so when you know the only way you'll get the client out of this is through a technicality, not the facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ken, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
Yes. The format they use is the preferred and customary format.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:07pm

Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
Not boring, but useful background. Always appreciated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:10pm

Mark Lutz is the real scapegoat - wouldn't want to be him right now...
I wouldn't want to be Mark Lutz right now. The whole Paul Hansmeier deposition is predicated on the idea of Lutz as mastermind, though even as Hansmeier spun this tale he seemed bristle at the question of whether he did whatever Lutz told him to. With everyone piling on about how Steele's former employee Lutz is the only one who is in charge it would be a great advantage to Hansmeier and Steele for Lutz to never show up in court.

I hope Lutz stays safe and manages to make it to court on Monday. A body guard might not be a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Makes sense ...
...objecting makes good legal sense, all the more so when you know the only way you'll get the client out of this is through a technicality, not the facts.

Dang that's a good point. Hahahaha too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:56pm

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
you have incurrend in one or more of the following: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitari, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:52pm

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
OOTB is a fucking freetard and ADMITS it

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zem, 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:13pm

Look out Sir Isaac
Dr Mr Isaac,

after coming to terms with the gravity of my current legal situation I see no other course of action than to pursue you for damages caused by your dangerous and ill considered invention.

Yrs truely

Brett Gibbs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurker Keith, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:03pm

Re:
You can't copyright facts (not that he wouldn't try & our broke system temproarily -- until challenged & overturned -- grant it), so he'd have to make the whole thing more sane (ie. fictionalize it) in order to be eligible for copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:43pm

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
Another dance played by out_of_the_asscrack's heroes of copyright. Where's your merits of copyright now, Chicken Joe? Bawk bawk bawkity bawk-bawk!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 9:38pm

Re:
especially when the timeframe they want it for includes time before Prenda was created. What came first the chicken or the egg?
It needs to exist before you can claim people were being mean to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 9:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
at least this time it didn't look like it was created using SurveryMonkey.

h/t @CopyrightClerk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 3:21am

Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
aha better late than never:

you have incurrend in one or more of the following: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 3:09am

From the extortionists', we bring you more from the list of Six Strikes non-defenses.

"The specific objections here: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document."
[ link to this | view in thread ]